IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  27 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008158 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he could not reveal at the time he was out-processed the reason he went absent without leave (AWOL).  He was the victim of a military sexual trauma (MST) in 1985 by senior non-commissioned officers (NCO) before he left for deployment to Korea.  At that time he could not handle the emotional trauma and he went AWOL.  At the time of his discharge he had stated that he had no desire to remain in the military or to report to Korea.  However, he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal in May of 1985.  The MST changed his life and he could not cope with what had happened to him.  This incident has affected his whole life and he is still suffering the consequences of the incident.  The circumstances of his MST were never reported due to the stigma at the time.  He is currently attending counseling for MST at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Center in Lakeland, FL.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* certificate awarding him the Army Achievement Medal
* a letter, dated 25 August 2014, from the Lakeland Vet Center, Lakeland, FL 


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  On 13 September 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  

3.  On 28 January 1984, he was assigned to B Troop, 7th Battalion, 17th Cavalry at Fort Hood, TX.  He was promoted to private (PVT)/E-2 on 13 March 1984.

4.  On 8 April 1985, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Military Center in Korea to report in accordance with his port call.  The orders contain an undated hand-written note by a captain, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy Reserve, who noted the applicant was being treated for bilateral severe otitis media (inner ear inflammation) and was unable to fly at the time due to the nature of his condition.

5.  On 11 September 1985, the applicant indicated he did not desire a separation medical examination.  On a Personnel Control Facility (PCF) Interview Sheet, dated 12 September 1985, the applicant indicated he went AWOL because he didn't like the Army and he didn't want to go to Korea.  He stated he took no action to make his port call.  He went AWOL en route to Korea.

6.  On 12 September 1985, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 22 July 1985 to on or about 
10 September 1985 from the U.S. Army Military Center in Korea.

7.  On 16 September 1985, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service.  He acknowledged he understood the offense he was charged with and he was:

* making the request of his own free will
* guilty of the offense with which he was charged
* advised he could submit any statements he desired in his own behalf with his request and he indicated he was not submitting any such statements
* afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request
* advised he may be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate

8.  In addition, he acknowledged he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he understood he may be ineligible for many or all veterans benefits under Federal or State laws.

9.  On 7 October 1985, the appropriate authority approved his request for discharge for the good of the service.  He directed the applicant be reduced to private/pay grade E-1 and that he be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 19 November 1985, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 2 years and 19 days of net active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  He had 48 days of lost time.  

11.  His service medical records were not available for review.

12.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  He provided a statement from his counselor, a licensed marriage and family therapist at Lakeland Veterans Center.  The counselor stated:

	a.  The applicant first came to the center on 10 July 2013 as a referral from the Veteran Hot Line.  He reported being a victim of MST while in the service.  He reported being sexually assaulted by superior NCOs on the day before he was going to deploy to a combat zone (demilitarized zone (DMZ) in South Korea in 1985).  After the trauma occurred he went AWOL.

	b.  The applicant reported abusing alcohol for 20 years and smoking an ounce of weed (marijuana) a week to cope with the symptoms.  He has given up the alcohol but still continued to have flash backs of the trauma every night.

	c.  He reports being frequently on alert in all situations.  He does not have any friendships besides his girlfriend and he frequently isolates himself when he feels that something bad could happen.

	d.  The applicant reported frequent intrusive thoughts about the MST.  He reported feelings of guilt, shame, and self-blame regarding the traumatic event.  He reported feelings of hypervigilance when he is in crowds and when there is a group of men walking together.  He reported difficulty focusing and having more nightmares since he has decreased his drinking.  He reported feelings of detachment regarding others and a diminished interest in significant activities.  He had difficulty going to sleep and staying asleep due to the nightly nightmares of the incident.

	e.  After a full intake assessment, military history and a screen for PTSD, the counselor concluded the applicant met the criteria for the diagnosis of 
MST-related PTSD.

	f.  After attending 12 cognitive processing therapy sessions the applicant continued to attend individual sessions.  He was making an effort to maintain the needed level of trust to continue to address his ongoing moderate to severe PTSD symptoms and recover from his condition and learn how to cope with it.

	g.  He continues to have multiple symptoms of avoidance, anger, re-experiencing traumas in nightmares and intrusive thoughts, isolation, and anxiety.  

	h.  The counselor stated the applicant would need long-term treatment to continue to work on recovering from his current MST-related PTSD.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally issued to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

15.  PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and it provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders.  In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-III nosologic classification scheme.  Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice.
From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis).  The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 

16.  PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor.  In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic.  Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress.  Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome.  Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified.  Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat.  Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations.

17.  The DSM fifth revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013.  This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder.  The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience.  The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters:  intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity.  The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition.

	a.  Criterion A, stressor:  The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) 

		(1)  Direct exposure. 

		(2)  Witnessing, in person.

		(3)  Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma.  If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental.

		(4)  Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures.

	b.  Criterion B, intrusion symptoms:  The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) 

		(1)  Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. 

		(2)  Traumatic nightmares. 

		(3)  Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. 

		(4)  Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. 

		(5)  Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. 

	c.  Criterion C, avoidance:  Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required)

		(1)  Trauma-related thoughts or feelings.

		(2)  Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations).

	d.  Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood:  Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs).

		(2)  Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous").

		(3)  Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences.

		(4)  Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame).

		(5)  Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities.
Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement).

		(6)  Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. 

	e.  Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity:  Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required)

		(1)  Irritable or aggressive behavior

		(2)  Self-destructive or reckless behavior

		(3)  Hypervigilance

		(4)  Exaggerated startle response

		(5)  Problems in concentration

		(6)  Sleep disturbance

	f.  Criterion F, duration:  Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. 

	g.  Criterion G, functional significance:  Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

	h.  Criterion H, exclusion:  Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 

18.  As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the Department of Defense (DoD) acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge.  It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge.  Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time.  

19.  In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service.

20.  BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies.  Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis.  When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered:

* Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge?

* Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service?
* Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms?
* Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service?
* Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service?
* Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case?
* Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event?
* Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated?
* How serious was the misconduct?

21.  Although the DoD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time.  Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge.  In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the UOTHC characterization of service.  Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of UOTHC.  Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct.  PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct.  Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causeal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The medical community and DoD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion.

2.  Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service.

3.  The letter from his therapist shows the applicant is currently being treated for MST-related PTSD, 27 years after his discharge. The applicant contends he experienced an MST incident before leaving for Korea, at the time he could not handle the emotional trauma, and he went AWOL

4.  On the PCF interview sheet the applicant indicated he went AWOL because he didn't like the Army and he didn't want to go to Korea.  He had been assigned to Fort Hood, TX for a little over 16 months prior to receiving orders for assignment in Korea.

5.  His service medical records are not available for review.  

6.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate when a member is separated under the provisions of chapter 10.  The records contain no evidence of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

7.  The applicant's record is void of any serious previous misconduct during this period of service and the misconduct of going AWOL appears to have been an isolated event that was the result of an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.

8.  It is concluded that the PTSD conditions were a causative factor in the misconduct that led to the discharge.  After carefully weighing that fact against the severity of the applicant's misconduct, there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of the applicant's service to a general discharge under honorable conditions and restoring his rank/grade to PVT/E-2 with an effective date of 13 March 1974.  However, if weighing the same above factors, the applicant’s overall service does not rise to a fully honorable characterization of service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 19 November 1985 to 

show the characterization of service as "General, Under Honorable Conditions" and his rank/grade as PVT/E-2 with an effective date of 13 March 1984.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to a fully honorable service.



      ___________x____________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008158



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008158



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1